BOOK REVIEWS

The first of these books covers an immense field. Seventy-five countries, grouped in five major regions, have been examined from the point of view of the interactions of their populations at large with the persons who are responsible for making and implementing decisions on their behalf. The five regions are Southeast Asia (Lucian W. Pye); South Asia (Myron Weiner); Sub-Saharan Africa (James S. Coleman); the Near East (Dankwart A. Rustow); and Latin America (George I. Blanksten).

absorb all at once-relates to parties, interest groups, interest articulation, interest aggregation, political socialization and recruitment, and political communication. On the other hand, the fourth sub-section is always brief for the reason, explicitly recognized, that governmental structures in non-Western areas are often indeterminate and usually differ widely from constitutional or legal norms. The effect of the space allotment is to emphasize the non-governmental political process. Here too it is granted that systematic analysis is complicated by a still imperfect integration of the process.
In his substantial concluding section, Coleman uses the same method to summarize the book that he and his co-authors have used in their separate area sections. He classifies the large number of political systems already analyzed, and presents a functional profile of each class. In this concern for classification as a means of ordering the political phenomena represented by entire systems, Coleman's concluding section resembles the characteristic efforts in each area section to develop useful taxonomic schemes for parties, party systems, and interest groups.
Throughout the work classification and generalization rest specifically on the assumption that there is a modern political system, defined as having certain properties and represented by advanced Western democracies. The nations of the developing areas stand in varying relations to this modern system. For example, developing nations have relatively modern party arrangements when parties perform the aggregative function in ways similar to those of American and British parties. At this point the authors would be challenged by the area specialist whose cardinal virtue is cultural immersion. Why, he would ask, should there be a universal developmental pattern derived from a portion of Western experience, rather than unique patterns of development for each society or for groups of new societies? Certainly the authors would not yet claim to answer this question with complete confidence in the durability of their concepts. Further experience may modify the frame of reference. What they can do, and have done with care and sophistication, is to develop tentatively, from existing knowledge of Western politics as well as from the already impressive though smaller body of knowledge of non-Western politics, a set of conceptual terms that allows an ordering of data essential to scientific endeavor. On this score alone, The Politics of the Developing Areas is an outstanding contribution to political science. LEON (New York: Knopf, 1948), but most of the essentially theoretical studies have appeared in professional journals of limited circulation or in obscure and little read monographs. In recent months, however, several very useful collections of materials relating to theories of international relations have been published. Perhaps the best of these is the volume edited by Stanley H. Hoffmann.
The title is misleading. Few of the selections are really significant theoretical contributions. Most of them are approaches to a theory or theories of international relations, or methodological essays, overlaid with a series of critical prefatory comments by the editor. According to Professor Hoffmann, "the main contemporary theories of international relations" are the "realist" theory of power politics, which he identifies with Professor Morgenthau, philosophies of history, such as those expressed over the years by Professor Toynbee, "systems theory," whose chief exponent in the field of international relations is Morton Kaplan (this theory often leads to the development of mathematical models and to the theory of games of strategy), George Liska's equilibrium theory, and the decision-making approach to the study of international politics, identified chiefly with Richard C. Snyder. Professor Hoffmann holds that the "realist" theory reduces the study of international relations "to a formalized ballet," is "too static," and has only a "limited" usefulness "as a general theory for the discipline" (p. 35). Philosophies of history end "in the sky, not in a theory for international relations" (p. 39). "Systems theory" "springs from a misunderstanding of the natural sciences" (p. 42), "uses totally inappropriate techniques" (p. 44), "involves some fantastic assumptions" (p. 45), and is at best "a huge misstep in the right direction" (p. 40). The equilibrium theory "is both too broad and too narrow to serve as a useful central tool" (p. 51). The decision-making approach "might be right for foreign-policy analysis, but it is too weak for the rest of international relations" (p. 53).
Having cheerfully conducted what he calls frankly "a wrecking operation," Professor Hoffmann turns from "theories" to "suggestions." A statement on the jacket of the book claims that he "offers an original program of systematic research for the future." In fact, what he does is to suggest two directions of research, emphasizing historical sociology and the relation between political philosophy and international problems. These are useful suggestions, but they are not "original," nor do they provide a "program of systematic research." The excellent selections from Raymond Aron, Herbert Kelman, Ernst B. Haas, Arnold Wolfers, and E. H. Carr, which are included in this section of the book, are reminders that significant work is already being done in these two fields.
The selections in this volume are indicative of the progress that has been made in the study of international relations, and, even though they do not add up to a theory, they illustrate significant approaches with which every student of the subject should be familiar. Unhappily, many of the leading contributors to the field, some of whom are represented in this collection, are writing in an almost unintelligible jargon. They would do well to heed this gentle reminder of Professor Wolfers: "Sometimes the scientifically minded scholar of today may turn out to be merely more pedantic in his formulations and less afraid of belaboring the obvious" (p. 243). The selections by Raymond Aron, Wolfers, and E. H. Carr are evidence that it is possible to combine profundity of thought with intelligibility of expression and grace of style. This is a lesson which many contemporary students of international affairs have not yet learned.

University of Pennsylvania
The Political Economy of National Security. BY JAMES R. SCHLESINGER. (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. 1960. ix, 292. $5.00). In a world in which the United States cannot hope to devise absolute security, choices on national security issues are choices among hazards. Risking, as they do, the welfare and defense of our body politic, they are ipso facto political choices. Professor Schlesinger states